Now, I will address the original question of the post as best as I can.

From the little I know, the question, Romanticizing Hunter Gatherers? is a critique of a prevalent attitude amongst Anti-Civilisation ideologues that what predates what they imagine to be civilisation is a human society based solely on hunting and gathering. I refute that conception.

Hunting and gathering is concomitant with agriculture. Hunting and gathering in truly human, uncivilised, society is a method of satisfying our needs, either where the possibility of agriculture is precluded, or it is used alongside agriculture.

Edit: I have read the article that was linked to on the original post. I have given our esteemed anthropologist too much credit. The article is simply an apology for colonialism in Africa blaming the terrible poverty on that continent on the native culture and not on 500 years of European/bourgeois bloodletting. Sic

You weren't aware that we've already been arguing since page 5 over whether money is optional in western industrial societies, as well as over the Spanish Revolution, collectivism, etc? That's odd.

(Sun, 25 Feb 2018 07:59:58 +0000, 07:59 AM)KyXen Wrote: Now, I will address the original question of the post as best as I can.

From the little I know, the question, Romanticizing Hunter Gatherers? is a critique of a prevalent attitude amongst Anti-Civilisation ideologues that what predates what they imagine to be civilisation is a human society based solely on hunting and gathering. I refute that conception.

Hunting and gathering is concomitant with agriculture. Hunting and gathering in truly human, uncivilised, society is a method of satisfying our needs, either where the possibility of agriculture is precluded, or it is used alongside agriculture.

Edit: I have read the article that was linked to on the original post. I have given our esteemed anthropologist too much credit. The article is simply an apology for colonialism in Africa blaming the terrible poverty on that continent on the native culture and not on 500 years of European/bourgeois bloodletting. Sic

(Mon, 25 Dec 2017 15:07:58 +0000, 03:07 PM)Zhachev Wrote: I admit, it's hard to do. But at least some of "the most remote" H-Gs are not reproducing capital. The so-called north "Sentinelese" people are an example. No evidence of agricultural practices or controlled use of fire has been observed. It's between 15-500 people and they've completely resisted the State through geographic advantages and sticks and stones.

That's just one example. There may be others?

Agriculture and fire are not capitalist practices, so completely irrelevant. It's true there are a few tribes left (both H-G and horticultural) who have not been integrated into the world economy, but since they live in remote areas and are on the fringes of civilization, I fail to see how they could serve as a model for individuals within Western societies trying to stop capitalist reproduction since a) they never had capitalist reproduction in the first place b) they are resisting collectively, not as isolated individuals.

What do you think we could learn from these few examples?

(Mon, 25 Dec 2017 15:07:58 +0000, 03:07 PM)Zhachev Wrote: This is comical! If I started listing the ways and times Anarchism has fucked up and completely "failed on it's own", without being crushed, I'd be here writing all day.

We're talking about full on collective direct action against capitalist reproduction and the state. How many examples of this in history are there? How did the Spanish Revolutionary anarchists, for instance, fail on their own?

(Mon, 25 Dec 2017 15:07:58 +0000, 03:07 PM)Zhachev Wrote: What does "actually" taking on and fighting the system mean? Mailing bombs to people?

Fighting the system (often in the form of a government, since governments regulate the system) as a whole. Directly confronting those little Eichmans who run the system. It certainly doesn't mean things like protesting, or breaking bank windows.

Quote:Again, that's an impossible standard. Every social animal experiences conflict within a group. Much better to learn how to deal with conflict.

Quote:I see the question as one of eroding the system from within, of being like a parasite that eventually kills its host. Instead of trying to escape the system, we should use it against itself, and transform it into what we want.

You've never heard of this before? We are already doing this to some extent. We use computers, money, rules, laws, to fight back in whatever various ways we can ...against politicians, landlords, corporations, bosses, cops, etc. We use the tools of the system to organize and resist. We could also be doing things like e.g. getting onto juries to annul them. Infiltrating the police by becoming one of them in order to thwart plans and release classified info. We could be infiltrating a lot of institutions to disrupt them. Unfortunately most anarchists don't think very strategically.

I agree we should be strategic. This internet thing is strategic on the controller's part because they are using it to figure us out and control us. 2 things we can do to hurt system: 1) Unfuckingplug. (Can we organize a mass unplugging for a month sometime in 2019 ?) 2) Use the net for nothing other than gathering intelligence on our enemy and sharing it with each other.

(Sun, 09 Dec 2018 00:56:29 +0000, 12:56 AM)Hoot Wrote: I agree we should be strategic. This internet thing is strategic on the controller's part because they are using it to figure us out and control us. 2 things we can do to hurt system: 1) Unfuckingplug. (Can we organize a mass unplugging for a month sometime in 2019 ?) 2) Use the net for nothing other than gathering intelligence on our enemy and sharing it with each other.

The Net, along with all other technology necessary to engage our enemies, should not be avoided. The problems surrounding social networking do not result from technologies, they result from human error. For a better sense of this, check out the book Stasi by John Koehler, as well as The Unsleeping Eye by Stove. They demonstrate that Internet-style state repression does not at all rely on Internet technology. In East Germany in the 1980s, there was a nearly 17% chance your neighbors were informing on you. All the Internet has done is centralize these techniques and apparatuses, while also making them remotely accessible to any appendage of Leviathan anywhere in the world.